alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# October 26: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Oct. 26, 2017
October 26, 2017Release # 20171026-01FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**SOUTHWEST ASIA –** On Oct. 25, Coalition military forces conducted 15 strikes consisting of 25 engagements against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq.In Syria, Coalition military forces conducted seven strikes consisting of 14 engagements against ISIS targets.•       Near Abu Kamal, one strike destroyed an ISIS-held building.•       Near Dayr Az Zawr, six strikes engaged two ISIS tactical units and destroyed five ISIS lines of communication, a tactical vehicle and a defensive fighting position.In Iraq, Coalition military forces conducted eight strikes consisting of 11 engagements against ISIS targets.•       Near Al Qaim, six strikes engaged two ISIS tactical units and an ISIS staging area and destroyed 10 supply routes, a VBIED facility, an ISIS vehicle and a command and control node.•       Near Rawah, one strike destroyed an ISIS safehouse.•       Near Qayyarah, one strike destroyed a supply route.These strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  The destruction of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria also further limits the group’s ability to project terror and conduct external operations throughout the region and the rest of the world.This Coalition strike release contains all strikes conducted by fighter, attack, bomber, rotary-wing, or remotely piloted aircraft, rocket propelled artillery and ground-based tactical artillery.A strike, as defined in the Coalition release, refers to one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative effect in that location.  For example, a single aircraft delivering a single  weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering  dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined.CJTF-OIR does not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. The information used to compile the daily strike releases is based on 'Z' or Greenwich Mean Time.-30-
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.160 What does the MRO do when a valid test result cannot be produced and a negative result is required? ( a ) If a valid test result cannot be produced and a negative result is required, (under § 40.159 (a)(5)(iii) and (e)(4)), as the MRO, you must determine if there is clinical evidence that the individual is currently an illicit drug user. You must make this determination by personally conducting, or causing to be conducted, a medical evaluation. In addition, if appropriate, you may also consult with the employee's physician to gather information you need to reach this determination.
( b ) If you do not personally conduct the medical evaluation, as the MRO, you must ensure that one is conducted by a licensed physician acceptable to you.
( c ) For purposes of this section, the MRO or the physician conducting the evaluation may conduct an alternative test (e.g., blood) as part of the medically appropriate procedures in determining clinical evidence of drug use.
( d ) If the medical evaluation reveals no clinical evidence of drug use, as the MRO, you must report this to the employer as a negative test result with written notations regarding the medical examination. The report must also state why the medical examination was required (i.e., either the basis for the determination that a permanent or long-term medical condition exists or because the recollection under direct observation resulted in another invalid result for the same reason, as appropriate) and for the determination that no signs and symptoms of drug use exist. ( 1 ) Check “Negative” (Step 6) on the CCF.
( 2 ) Sign and date the CCF.
( e ) If the medical evaluation reveals clinical evidence of drug use, as the MRO, you must report the result to the employer as a cancelled test with written notations regarding the results of the medical examination. The report must also state why the medical examination was required (i.e., either the basis for the determination that a permanent or long-term medical condition exists or because the recollection under direct observation resulted in another invalid result for the same reason, as appropriate) and state the reason for the determination that signs and symptoms of drug use exist. Because this is a cancelled test, it does not serve the purpose of an actual negative test result (i.e., the employer is not authorized to allow the employee to begin or resume performing safety-sensitive functions, because a negative test result is needed for that purpose).
[73 FR 35972, June 25, 2008]
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.389 What factors may the Director consider? This section lists examples of the kind of mitigating and aggravating factors that the Director may consider in determining whether to issue a PIE concerning you, as well as the scope and duration of a PIE. This list is not exhaustive or exclusive. The Director may consider other factors if appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case. The list of examples follows: ( a ) The actual or potential harm that results or may result from your noncompliance;
( b ) The frequency of incidents and/or duration of the noncompliance;
( c ) Whether there is a pattern or prior history of noncompliance;
( d ) Whether the noncompliance was pervasive within your organization, including such factors as the following: ( 1 ) Whether and to what extent your organization planned, initiated, or carried out the noncompliance;
( 2 ) The positions held by individuals involved in the noncompliance, and whether your principals tolerated their noncompliance; and
( 3 ) Whether you had effective standards of conduct and control systems (both with respect to your own organization and any contractors or affiliates) at the time the noncompliance occurred;
( e ) Whether you have demonstrated an appropriate compliance disposition, including such factors as the following: ( 1 ) Whether you have accepted responsibility for the noncompliance and recognize the seriousness of the conduct that led to the cause for issuance of the PIE;
( 2 ) Whether you have cooperated fully with the Department during the investigation. The Director may consider when the cooperation began and whether you disclosed all pertinent information known to you;
( 3 ) Whether you have fully investigated the circumstances of the noncompliance forming the basis for the PIE and, if so, have made the result of the investigation available to the Director;
( 4 ) Whether you have taken appropriate disciplinary action against the individuals responsible for the activity that constitutes the grounds for issuance of the PIE; and
( 5 ) Whether your organization has taken appropriate corrective actions or remedial measures, including implementing actions to prevent recurrence;
( f ) With respect to noncompliance with a DOT agency regulation, the degree to which the noncompliance affects matters common to the DOT drug and alcohol testing program;
( g ) Other factors appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1000

In re: TIMOTHY OMAR HANKINS, SR. , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 7:20

- cv - 00179

- FL )

Submitted : May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion

. Timothy Omar Hankins, Sr. , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Omar Hankins, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seek ing an order from this court directing the district court to act on his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to issue a ruling on his complaint filed in the district court in September 2020

. He also seeks a stay of all state actions and orders pending resolution of his federal c ourt proceeding s. Turning first to Hankins ’ alleg ations of delay by the district court, our review of the district court’s docket reveals no undue delay

. To the extent that Hankins seeks an order from this court staying state court actions and orders, Hankins is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Chene y v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795. The relief s ought by Hankins is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
§ 269.7 Petitions. ( a ) *In general.* An eligible petitioner may petition FRA to provide intercity passenger rail transportation over a long-distance route in lieu of Amtrak for a period of time consistent with the time limitations described in § 269.3(b).
( b ) *Petition requirements.* Eligible petitioners must: ( 1 ) File the petition with FRA no later than 180 days after September 5, 2017;
( 2 ) Describe the petition as a “Petition to Provide Passenger Rail Service under 49 CFR part 269”;
( 3 ) Describe the long-distance route or routes over which the eligible petitioner wants to provide intercity passenger rail transportation and the Amtrak service that the eligible petitioner wants to replace; and
( 4 ) If applicable, provide an executed copy of all written agreements with all entities that own infrastructure on the long-distance route or routes over which the eligible petitioner wants to provide intercity passenger rail transportation. The written agreement(s) must demonstrate the infrastructure owner's support for the petition.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1407.html[7/23/2015 9:32:42 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvn-v4vy

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1407

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Leave my 401K and IRA alone, I can handle my own retirement income.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2481 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2481

 To designate the Federal Triangle Project under construction at 14th 
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, 
   as the ``Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 13, 1995

Mrs. Seastrand (for herself, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Cox of California, Ms. 
 Dunn of Washington, Mr. Davis, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Oxley, 
Mr. Dornan, Mr. Hoke, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Walker, Mr. 
  Baker of California, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs. 
Kelly, Mr. Kim, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Taylor of North 
 Carolina, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. King, Mr. Herger, Mr. Calvert, 
    Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Laughlin, Mr. 
  Knollenberg, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Cooley, Mr. Radanovich, 
 Mrs. Chenowith, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Horn, and 
  Mr. Riggs) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Federal Triangle Project under construction at 14th 
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, 
   as the ``Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal Triangle Project under construction at 14th Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Ronald Reagan Building and International 
Trade Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ronald Reagan Building and 
International Trade Center''.
                                 <all>
```
-----Original Message-----

From: Charles Barra [mailto:charleskbarra@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 1:35 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I am greatly concerned that the proposed rule would prohibit me from using options in my IRA to 

manage risk in this account.

In light of recent volatility in the financial markets, it would be harmful to prevent IRA participants from 

using listed options to reduce risk and preserve their retirement assets.

Please ensure that the final rule continues to allow IRA participants to use listed options to protect their 

assets and ultimately their ability to retire with peace of mind.

Respectfully submitted,

Charles K Barra

957 76th Street

Brooklyn, NY 11228-2317
###### Editorial Note on Part 393

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 393 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 393.29 [Reserved]
#### Frederic Phannemiller, Respondent, v. Austin Roe, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
From: joseph mc monagle [mailto:joemcmonagle153@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 12:42 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA; singletarym@washpost.com

Subject: washington post article /retirement investing

Dear Sec. Perez,

I read with interest the article in todya's washington post by Ms. Singeltary and fully support the 

implementation of financial advisors being required to assume fiduciary responsibilty for their 

clieints investments. I have recently retired as a mortgage loan officer (30 years) and have seen 

abuses in my former industry as some loan officers steered customers into more expensive 

mortgage products. Needless to say, that has been and is being corrected by the dood frank act. 

The act is not entirely helpful to the cosumer due to unclear and overwhelmong disclosures but it 

is leaning in that direction.

I am in the process of transitioning into the field of fee only financial planning and know there 

are so many areas that need to be addressed to inform and educate the general public regarding 

their retirement plans. Not the least of which is for the public to educate themselves as to the 

stratagies and products available to meet their retirment goals. It does not have to be excessively 

complicated but peole have to know it's a long term process and there are no reliable get rich 

quick tricks.

Basically, keep it simple, live below your means, know yourself, be patient and plan ahead for 

the long term with an appropriarte asset allocation portfolio of stocks, bonds and cash.

I would welcome the opportunity to engage in a dialoge with eirher one of you to expand on my 

thoughts and basic financial and retirement philosophy.

Regards,

Joe McMonagle
exv10w5



 










Exhibit 10.5




Annual Compensation of Non-Employee Directors



On January 31, 2006, based on its review of the CEO’s recommendations, the Compensation Committee
approved the following compensation for the Non-Employee Directors of the Company:








	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	2006	 	 	2005	 	 	2005	 
	Name/Position	 	Retainer	 	 	Retainer	 	 	Cash Incentive	 
	Jacques Rebibo, Non-Executive Chairman
	 	$	38,875	 	 	$	37,000	 	 	$	25,000	 
	J. Randy Babbitt, Non-Employee Director
	 	$	26,875	 	 	$	25,000	 	 	$	25,000	 
	Thomas Kody, Non-Employee Director
	 	$	26,875	 	 	$	25,000	 	 	$	25,000	 
	John W. Edgemond IV, Non-Employee Director
	 	$	26,875	 	 	$	25,000	 	 	$	25,000	 
	James L. Jadlos, Non-Employee Director
	 	$	26,875	 	 	$	25,000	 	 	$	25,000	 





For the Non-Executive Chairman, $1,000 of the indicated 2005 and 2006 retainer amounts are paid
monthly, totaling $12,000 per year. The balance of the 2005 retainer and cash incentive for all
Non-Employee Directors, including the Chairman, was paid in February 2006. The 2006 Retainer will
be paid by quarterly installments in the month following the end of each fiscal quarter for 2006.
In addition, 1,000 options were issued to each non-employee director on December 30, 2005.
EXHIBIT 23





                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-42543 dated August 30, 1991) pertaining
to the Cognitronics Corporation 1967 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-42544 dated August 30,
1991 and Form S-8 No. 333-05897 dated June 13, 1996) pertaining to
the Cognitronics Corporation 1990 Stock Option Plan and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-05899 dated June 13, 1996)
pertaining to the Cognitronics Corporation Restricted Stock Plan of
our report dated March 7, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Cognitronics Corporation included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.






Stamford, Connecticut
March 28, 2003
§ 227.219 Incorporation by reference. Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the FRA and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact FRA at: Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; phone: (202) 493-6052; email: *FRALegal@dot.gov*. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations* or email *fr.inspection@nara.gov .* The material may be obtained from the following sources: ( a ) The British Standards Institution, 12110 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 200, Reston, VA 20190-5902, phone: 800-862-4977; website: *shop.bsigroup.com.* ( 1 ) BS EN 1146:2005, Respiratory protective devices—Self-contained, open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus incorporating a hood for escape—requirements, testing, marking; February 2, 2006; into §§ 227.203(b) and 227.207(c).
( 2 ) BS EN 13794:2002, Respiratory protective devices—Self-contained, closed-circuit breathing apparatus for escape—requirements, testing, marking, November 26, 2002; into §§ 227.203(b) and 227.207(c).
( b ) International Organization for Standardization, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland; phone +41-22-749-08-88; website: *www.iso.org .* ( 1 ) ISO 23269-1:2008(E), Ships and marine technology—Breathing apparatus for ships—Part 1: Emergency escape breathing devices (EEBD) for shipboard use, First Edition, February 1, 2008; into §§ 227.203(b) and 227.207(c).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
| Jump       to content      Social Security Online | Multilanguage       Gateway                          |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| www.socialsecurity.gov                            | Home Questions?             How to Contact Us Search |
| Multilanguage       Gateway Home                  | Tagalog                                              |

| Interpreter         Services

Contact Us
Get Accessible             Acrobat Reader
  | The Facts about Upcoming New Benefits in Medicare 

              Authorization to Disclose Information to the Social Security Administration                

              A Snapshot of Social Security 

              Interpreter Services Policy 

              Retirement and Survivors Benefits (SSA Pub 05-10717) 

              Disability Benefits (SSA Pub 05-10718) 

              Supplemental Security Income Benefits (SSA Pub 05-10716) 

              Requirements for Payees to Establish Dedicated Accounts 

              Special Benefits For Certain World War II Veterans (SSA Pub 05-10157               Tagalog) 

 SSI Rights and Responsibilities (SSA Pub.               05-10832) |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        |                                                                                         |  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|   | Privacy Policy       | Accessibility Policy | Linking       Policy | Site Map |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 189 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 17, 2001.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) proposing an amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit 
the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The joint resolution 
shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the joint resolution and any amendment thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute, if 
offered by Representative Conyers of Michigan or his designee, which shall be 
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```